The petitioner challenged the recovery of Rs.42,240 wrongly paid as Family Planning Allowance for 22 years. The court held that recovery would not cause undue hardship given the petitioner's high pension and dismissed the petition.
Petitioner not inclined to receive any relief; CWPOA dismissed along with pending miscellaneous applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.5392 of 2020 Decided on: 12th October, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Raj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta & Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Arsh Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocates General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
This CWPOA is filed challenging the action of the respondents in seeking to recover a sum of Rs.42,240/- from the petitioner, which is said to have been wrongly paid to the petitioner for a period of 22 years from 01.03.1996 to 28.02.2018 towards Family Planning Allowance.
2. According to the respondents, the said allowance is not
payable to the petitioner since he already had three children by the
2
date he underwent the family planning operation as per circular dt. 10.01.1986.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 3341 , in particular paras 10 and 18 thereof, however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner even by June, 2014, was drawing the basic pay of Rs.24,230/-, to which some other allowances would certainly be added and since it is not disputed that by the time petitioner retired in 2019, he was drawing more than Rs.60,000/- per month, it cannot be said that undue hardship would be caused to the petitioner or it would be iniquitous if the recovery of a meagre amount of Rs.42,240/- is effected.
4. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this CWPOA. Accordingly, the CWPOA is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice
October 12, 2023 Mukesh
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge
1 (2015) 4 SCC 334
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can dismiss the writ petition when recovery of Family Planning Allowance wrongly paid for 22 years would not cause undue hardship to the petitioner.
Whether the claim for Family Planning Allowance is sustainable when the petitioner already had three children at the time of the operation.
Whether the value of the wrongly paid allowance justifies granting any relief to the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and othersReferred¶13
State of Punjab and others Versus Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hans Raj
State of H.P.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
